[foaf-dev] Wishlists / requests for next rev of FOAF spec?
danbri at danbri.org
Tue Jun 12 03:26:27 EDT 2012
On 12 June 2012 09:16, Bob Ferris <zazi at smiy.org> wrote:
> +1 for upgrading the majority of these terms to stable. However, I would
> exclude the homepage relations (foaf:schoolHomepage and
> foaf:workplaceHomepage), because one would rather link a workplace and/or
> school resource today (which can even have a more detailed description),
A major appeal of these two is deployment simplicity in the newly
standardised RDFa Lite (which btw pre-declares the 'foaf:' prefix).
and work at <a href="http://www.vu.nl/"
Try pasting that into http://rdfa.info/play/ and you get
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
foaf:workplaceHomepage <http://www.vu.nl/> .
... since we care about linked data, more information about those
institutions ought to be available from their homepages; we don't need
to fully describe them each time.
How would this look if the orgs were described directly inline?
> Re. modelling the "like" relation, I would also suggest to have a look at
> the Association Ontology , whose approach was a bit different because it
> modelled the "like" relation from the object direction and which is a bit
> more verbose.
>  http://purl.org/ontology/ao/core#
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-dev